Article
Krätzig, G. P., & Arbuthnott, K. D. (2006). Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 238-246. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.238
Synopsis
Some educators have embraced the concept of VAK learning styles. According to this concept, each individual prefers to receive new information when presented in one of three formats: visual, auditory, or kinesthetic (hands-on). The authors noted that many attempts have been made to develop instruments which accurately identify learning styles, which were intended to guide educators in tailoring their instructional methods to produce optimal results for each individual learner. The authors also noted that many of the instruments in use have not been validated through research. More critically, the authors found that there was no research to back up the assertion that educational programs geared towards a specific learning style resulted in improved retention of new information by those identified as possessing that learning style. The authors conducted one research study to look for evidence that learning styles had such an impact, followed by a second study which examined what factors prompted individuals to classify themselves as a specific learning style.
Study 1
For the first research study, the authors looked for a correlation between learners’ self-assessed learning styles and their ability to recall information presented in each of the three styles. As research has suggested that the time of day also impacted memory, the authors included this as an additional study variable. Each of the 65 study participants first answered a single question asking them to describe themselves as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners; they could also describe themselves as preferring all three equally or not having a preference. After this, they completed the Barsch Learning Styles Inventory (BLSI), a commonly-used learning style self-assessment, and the Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire (MEQ) which established their preferred times of the day.
All study participants completed three standardized and validated tests, each of which paired one type of presentation (visual, auditory, or kinesthetic) with a memory exercise; each test measured both immediate recall and delayed recall. The kinesthetic test produced two scores, one for time needed for recall and the other for accuracy of recall.
Findings: Participants’ learning styles were identified both by the participants’ own perceptions and the results of the BLSI; the authors found no significant correlation between perceived learning styles and instrument-identified learning styles, with perception matching measured styles for only 44.6% of the participants. The authors then analyzed the participants’ memory test scores in relation to their BLSI-identified learning styles and found no significant positive correlation between a learning style and its matching standardized test. The authors did find significant positive correlations between BLSI-identified kinesthetic learners and their scores on the visually-oriented test, participants’ performance on the visually-oriented test and performance on each aspect (time and accuracy) of the kinesthetic test, and the participants’ scores for kinesthetic time and kinesthetic accuracy. The authors also looked at the time-of-day preference, comparing the correlation between scores and identified learning styles of participants completing the tests at their preferred time of day against those doing so at a non-preferred time; they did not find any significant correlation between preferred time of day, identified learning styles, and level of performance in memory tests.
Study 2
The results of the authors’ first study suggested that the BLSI might not accurately identify the learning style of an individual. They hypothesized that the problem may lie in the subjective nature of the self-assessment, and that individuals may choose their answers based on something other than their actual experiences as learners. Ten participants completed the BLSI, then were interviewed about their answers to better understand why they chose the answers they did.
The authors looked for themes in the qualitative data and found five categories into which participants’ statements about their reasoning fell: specific examples, general memories, preferences, self-efficacy, and habits and routines. The least frequent type of reasoning (6.3%) given for choosing answers on the BLSI was  specific examples of the participants’ learning experiences; in every such instance, the participant named only a single experience as evidence for that answer, leading the authors to assume that the answer was chosen solely because of that single experience. The frequency of basing answers on general memories, preferences, and self-efficacy were very similar (26.7%, 27.9%, and 28.3%, respectively), with the remaining 10.8% of participant answers based on their habits and routines. Further analysis of this qualitative data led the authors to conclude that participants remembered their prior experiences in terms of what happened during the experience, rather than in terms of how much they learned through those learning experiences or how much of the learning they retained. Statements related to self-efficacy, defined as self-confidence about one’s ability to perform at a high level, appeared to have some potential as an indicator of real learning performance but the authors could not prove any actual connection.
Findings
In the first study, the authors could not find a strong correlation between identified learning styles and recall of learning resulting from a style-specific educational format. The second study investigated a possible reason for the results of the first study, which is that individuals may base their self-assessment on perceptions unrelated to actual results of prior learning experiences and thus are not answering the assessment tool accurately. However, even if an assessment tool is developed which improves the accuracy of learning style identification, the authors warn that there is still no clear evidence that catering to individual learning styles will make a significant improvement in learning performance.
Discussion for OPWL-N Members
When your colleagues say you should design instruction by catering to the learners’ dominant learning style, what would be your response? Do you know of any research that justifies that educational programs should cater to specific learning styles? When it comes to influencing learning outcomes, how important are the other factors such as contextual or cultural factors, compared to the the preference for a certain type of stimuli (visual, auditory, or kinesthetic)?
Workplace Oriented Research Central (WORC)
Prepared by OPWL Graduate Assistant, Perri Kennedy
Directed by OPWL Professor, Yonnie Chyung
Posted on April 11, 2012